Markets don’t matter that much any more, so I’m not going to hang my hat on that. Hell, UH really doesn’t dominate its own market. I venture to say that UT and aTm both have bigger fan followings in this town.
As for our ceiling…I dunno Bro!
If Sampson delivers a natty in basketball this season, then we’ll tie Baylor in that.
But if football keeps going nowhere fast…and we lose to Baylor…not sure about our ceiling.
If the House decision’s “direct pay for play” proposal goes into effect…then how does UH keep up?
Agree. I simply do not understand why people cannot get this point. If metro areas made a difference, St John in NYC and Cal in Northern California would be bigger. It is all about brand now.
Rutgers happened because of cable carriage. They would not have been a part of the BIG today.
Those schools weren’t selected because of their markets.
They were selected for their BRANDS except for UH, which got in because of politics, and SMU, which BOUGHT its way in.
Oregon State and Wazzu weren’t excluded because of their markets. They were excluded because of their miniscule brand sizes, attendance etc.
Likewise, Temple, Georgia State, and Tulane weren’t excluded because of their markets. On the contrary, they were excluded IN SPITE OF their markets.
They were excluded, much like OSU and Wazzu…because of their crappy brands.
Stanford and Cal likewise more or less bought their way in…their market was not good enough to get them into any P4 at full shares, simply because their brands were THAT BAD.
You’ve mentioned multiple times how poor of a brand Stanford was…the fact is the SF Bay area and the DFW matket were integral to ACC getting increased ACCN coverage increases.
Those SMALL towns in Washington and Oregon would NOT have resulted in that cable carriage increase.
They got in because a) they were willing to play for 1/4 shares (i.e., they bought their way in), and b) the ACC was desperate to stave off dissolution.
Same for SMU, except to an EVEN GREATER degree.
BRANDS matter. NOT markets. Markets were critical back in 2012. That’s how Rutgers and Maryland got into the B1G.
Today, with all the cord cutting that has gone on…it ain’t as much of a thing.
Stanford and Cal’s market didn’t help them. Their willingness to buy their way in…combined with the fact that they were willing to play for what their brands were actually worth (1/4) got them in. The Bay Area is 49ers territory. It could care less about COLLEGE football.
To the extent that markets matter, UT and aTm deliver Houston’s market better than UH would.
Its a KNOWN fact that the ACC addition of schools in Texas (DFW) and California (SF) resulted in INCREASED cable coverage revenue for the Conference.
Quote:
Here’s what comes next: By adding the Dallas and San Francisco markets on July 1, 2024, Phillips must direct the ACC’s renegotiation of its long-term media rights with ESPN. That’s because there’s a huge gap between the payouts the SEC and Big Ten generate for their member schools and what is delivered to the ACC and Big 12 schools.
To say “Markets don’t matter in 2024” is definitely an assinite statement
We were going after UCONN because of THEIR MARKET!
Uh, UConn is a perfect case to support MY side, and DEBUNK yours.
Doesn’t matter what UConn’s market might have been, or how good it might be.
Their FOOTBALL BRAND was sooooo GOD AWFUL that that was more than a valid reason for REJECTING them. As it stands now, their football program will be lucky to even find a decent G6 landing spot.
Why? Because regardless of their market, their BRAND SUCKS, and markets won’t make up for that. BRANDS MATTER…NOT markets.
In the end BRANDS, and in particular, FOOTBALL BRANDS matter, NOT markets.
Anyway, the test of a BRAND is what the networks are willing to pay for it.
They aren’t willing to pay JACK SQUAT for SMU, and only 1/4 for Califord.
If that doesn’t tell you how much BRANDS matter, and how SUCKY those brands are, then you’re apparently a slow learner.
If UConn’s market were really that great…and markets truly mattered…as you seem to believe, then why did the Big 12 just REJECT them?
Hint: because BRANDS…NOT MARKETS, are what matters, and their brand truly sucks balls.
And as I pointed out, THEIR BRANDS got most of them in, NOT their markets.
That’s true of all but Houston and SMU, which got in because of political pull (in Houston’s case), and desperation on both sides/willingness to buy one’s way in (in the case of SMU).
Why are you the only one here that apparently doesn’t “get” that?
Everyone else is apparently bright enough to understand that much.
No offense, but what side are you on? Big markets or better schools? If big markets, then add Temple, FAU, Rice, UNLV, etc.
You keep talking about how UH is so superior, well I’d rather build on that vs the fact that it sits off i45 south. And it isn’t, before you knock Baylor. I’d fill up our stadium first.